- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,137
- Reaction score
- 694
Eh, my problem with the book wasn't with the politics. I've read plenty of Niven before. My problem is that it's badly written.
As you state below, this is about perception of an author as perceived as doing "assholery" in public.
Except this one was in private. Or it was until some person offered it up for everyone's consideration.
Personally I've concluded that this reveals a win-at-all-costs approach to disputes.
But if it's acceptable to root around trying to find private material to discredit someone publicly, I think that strikes at the root of community.
OK, if you guys think Jerry Pournelle is sexist, lets look at another author who has been called out by what he considers the feminist movement,...John Norman.
[snip]
No matter what anyone here thinks of John Norman the author, or Jerry Pournelle, or Larry Niven, there are others who enjoy their work. I think though that the trouble develops when reader can not separate the story from the authors public remarks, and perhaps that what is happening with the SFF.
Does any of that make sense?
But yeah, I think that's a different discussion.
Amadan, I really wish you'd put the Houseplants of Gor link back. Because...oh lordie.
I think part of what makes a community is, if not tolerance for differences, a willingness to allow space for others. It's one thing to argue over public words in a public forum. We're doing it right here. But if it's acceptable to root around trying to find private material to discredit someone publicly, I think that strikes at the root of community.
Anyway, John Lang aka Norman's remarks have suggested that to some degree, the views in his books are his views.
I've never been asked to undelete a post before!
Okay, here is what I posted before seeing zanzjan had asked to avoid a Gor derail. Thus, for entertainment purposes only:
<snip>
Obligatory Gor link: Houseplants of Gor. And that is seriously how John Norman writes.
Amadan, I really wish you'd put the Houseplants of Gor link back. Because...oh lordie.
...which was, I believe, the request that starting this whole sh*tstorm.The idea is to treat each other with a minimum of outward respect
...and not that.Demanding that people actually change themselves on the inside, in order to really be like you, is unreasonable. My two cents.
Okay, here is what I posted before seeing zanzjan had asked to avoid a Gor derail.
Incidentally, the one "Gorean lifestylist" I knew was a woman.I mean, there are actually fer-real Gorean lifestylists. Very few of whom, I suspect, while waxing Vox Dayish about their alpha-manly manitude and whacking off to pictures of slave girls, actually go hunt larls naked.
Awesome.Obligatory Gor link: Houseplants of Gor. And that is seriously how John Norman writes.
Later, while head librarian of my college SF club, someone stole and (it was reported) burned our entire collection of Gor books. Within days, someone had donated an entire new set. I never minded them in the library; if nothing else, they provide endless entertainment with "Gor tests", where you pick a random book out, flip it open to a random page, and see how far you can read before you've offended someone in the room.
And yet, at 18, I found his book worth reading. I was young, please forgive...
The MIT Science Fiction Library has 90 percent of all English-language SFF in print. ... Funnily enough I never had the urge to read them . . .
I suppose at least we got to 27 pages before someone suggested that not reading a Pournelle book is punishment for his thoughtcrimes.
Yes, but the information IS now public.
Frankly, I'd rather I hadn't read it, and that it hadn't been available for all to see. Or been said in the first place.
The tumblr was, to the best of anyone's guess, the act of a single person. It certainly was not the SF community as a whole, nor any one side as a whole, and it's evident right in this thread that a lot of us are very uncomfortable with the privacy breech in principle. What the motivation was for doing it is also ambiguous, which makes it not entirely certain which "side" the poster was on. So I'd be deeply hesitant about drawing any sort of sweeping conclusions from a solitary act of unknown intent.
Again, I think you're reframing the discussion into something it's not. We don't know, first of all, that someone "rooted around" looking for material to discredit anyone; it may simply be that they were part of the larger audience for that material (that the posters knew were there) and were so appalled by it they thought it needed wider attention. Or they thought it was funny. Or maybe they though, haha, this will demoralize the crap out of all those wimminfolk, knowing how badly everyone is against them. We can speculate, but we DO NOT KNOW the motivation or opinion of who posted it unless that person chooses to speak up and enlighten us.
Second, I haven't seen anyone here stating outright that it's acceptable to violate an individual's privacy. How private this actually was has been (legitimately) questioned, and why someone might feel it necessary to do so has been discussed. And the content of what was disclosed is being discussed. It was not disclosed here, and as far as I know, not by anyone here.
Outrage appears to be an unavoidable byproduct of this entire situation, but we all need to be careful not to misrepresent the context of any piece of it. We really don't need any more personal agendas gumming up the works.
Or is there a private SFWA-members only area of sff.net?
I suppose at least we got to 27 pages before someone suggested that not reading a Pournelle book is punishment for his thoughtcrimes.
And yes, I like the word ‘lady’. And ‘mister’. So there.
I read the first two Ringworld books and A World out of Time, and although Niven didn't have any terribly interesting female characters, they lacked the blatant hostility to feminism and environmentalism I detected in his collaborations with Pournelle.
I think this is at the heart of the problem, though. What if the "difference" you are being asked to tolerate is a lack of tolerance for difference?
Personally, I read all kinds of writers without bothering to check up on whether their politics or social opinions match mine.
In general, I think it's easier to ignore, forgive, explain away various "problematic elements" in a story if you yourself are not the intended target of such. The best way to get these modern day jerks to stop writing sexist, socially irresponsible crap is to stop reading it.
Certainly they've effectively driven members from the organization who didn't agree with them but didn't have the spoons to engage,
No matter what anyone here thinks of John Norman the author, or Jerry Pournelle, or Larry Niven, there are others who enjoy their work.
It's an assertion that bothers me a heck of a lot. First, however well-meaning some people who assert it (like Buffysquirrel!) are, it's also a favorite way for bigots to shoot down opposition from progressive activists with a conscience--they rely on our ethics being our Achilles' heel, which is to say, they rely on us being "too good to do any good." Secondly, because it posits bigotry as morally equivalent to not-bigotry, as both being equally meriting "tolerance." Thirdly, it posits that "tolerance" is the key thing, which it is not.
I do not fight for "tolerance" of women, people of color, people described by the various letters in the acronym QUILTBAG. I fight for acceptance of them in our society, for equal treatment under the law, for justice to be done them. Us. For us to have equal respect by virtue of being equally human. To adequately fight for these things, I can not "tolerate intolerance." You cannot make a space safe both for gay people and for homophobes, for people of color and for racists. And you can't argue for the status quo and still claim neutrality.